Suggested changes
{{PAGENAME}} should probably be used instead of {{{name}}}, unless there is a use for this template other than on battle pages. "Attacker" and "defender" probably shouldn't be used in the output, though they are fine variable names unless brevity argues strongly enough for "L" and "R." The word "strength" is used twice for two distinct purposes; Fall of the Twelve Colonies uses "Combatants" for the first instance, and I am inclined to agree with its usage. --CalculatinAvatar(C-T) 16:18, 12 May 2006 (CDT)
- {{{name}}} is only used if the name of the template should be named different due to size or "(SERIES)". --Shane (T - C - E) 14:35, 21 June 2006 (CDT)
"Combatants" is better than a division of "attacker" and "defender".--The Merovingian (C - E) 22:13, 12 May 2006 (CDT)
The heading "General Information" seems superfluous. I dislike the phrase '"Life" Casualties,' but I haven't thought of a solid replacement yet. Otherwise, the thing is beautiful; y'all have done very good work. --CalculatinAvatar(C-T) 14:24, 21 June 2006 (CDT)
- Personnel Casualties?--Steelviper 14:29, 21 June 2006 (CDT)
- Actually, based on both my own unerstanding of the term and [1], I think "Casualties" implies "Personnel," so I suppose I dislike "Ship Casualties," as well. --CalculatinAvatar(C-T) 14:50, 21 June 2006 (CDT)
table inside a table
Was the only way for it to look right. --Shane (T - C - E) 10:45, 13 June 2006 (CDT)
Final comments
Any other comments before I start the changes to add this template into the articles? Suggestions for change of the variable names? --Mercifull 05:48, 26 June 2006 (CDT)
- Current variables:
- scasualties1
- scasualties2
- lcasualties1
- lcasualties2
- New variables?
- shiploss1
- shiploss2
- casualties1
- casualties2
What about those with title Personnel Caualties changed to just Casualties --Mercifull (T - C - E) 07:44, 27 June 2006 (CDT)
- Ok i will be making the changes to the template this week.--Mercifull (Talk/Contribs) 07:56, 28 June 2006 (CDT)
What about "material losses" instead of "ship losses"? That's more general, and technically speaking, Vipers and Raptors aren't "ships". --Peter Farago 08:52, 28 June 2006 (CDT)
- I like "material losses". That would allow the people to go back to "casualties" that much more smoothly, and could account for any other critical pieces of equipment that might be a factor. --Steelviper 08:56, 28 June 2006 (CDT)
For Wikipedia's Battle of Midway page, which I'm basing a lot of the battle pages on, they just have "Casualties". I actually think "material losses" makes it look like there's one too many subheadings, and there's be less clutter if just merged with "Casualties". --The Merovingian (C - E) 18:27, 10 July 2006 (CDT)
- I see your point. I wish you could have mentioned this before it was implemented but nvm. Wondering what other people think about this issue? --Mercifull (Talk/Contribs) 02:53, 11 July 2006 (CDT)
- Those have excat counts. We don't really have that infomation. We also identifity better with "names" and assoactions better than general comments. Grouping them, also, would create style problems. One thing I do suggest is a palce for the "caption" and move the "teather" above the image just like the Battle of Midway page. Shane (T - C - E) 02:59, 11 July 2006 (CDT)